1 John 4:19 is the answer: “We love because he first loved us.” God’s love initiates; our love imitates. That is why these commands come in chapter 13 rather than chapter 1. Without the understanding of the love that Christ has demonstrated for us by not being ashamed to call us His brothers even as He took the judgment of our sins upon Himself, we have no hope of even beginning to love one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Indeed, it is only our being the recipients of Christ’s love that enables us truly to have eyes to see the value and worth of loving one another, for the very fact that we call each other brother and sister ought to be a constant reminder that we are constantly interacting with fellow sons and daughters of God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” So we can confidently say,
“The Lord is my helper;I will not fear;what can man do to me?”
Hebrews 13:1-6 ESV

Back in Hebrews 10:19-25, the author gave us a series of three commands that were directly rooted in the sufficiency of Christ’s priestly work as described in chapters 7-10. Those three commands effectively serve as a table of contents for the final three chapters of Hebrews. The conclusion of 10 and all of 11 gave us numerous examples of those who drew near to God by faith rather than shrinking back in fear. Chapter 12 through its marathon imagery and spiritual vision of our present blessings and future hope, expounded upon the command: “let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.” Now we come to chapter 13, which is largely a great series of practical exhortation for the Christian life. Indeed, here the author is modeling what he has commanded us to do through the Holy Spirit: “stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”
Love & Hospitality// Verses 1-3
Let brotherly love continue.
So begins our final chapter of Hebrews. It is difficult to know where to begin when discussing such a simple yet profound command, but I think it best to first note how this command differs from the rest of the many commands in this chapter. As we will see with the four other commands that we will consider today, author has a pattern of following each command with an explanation that is meant to drive the exhortation further. Most often that explanation begins with the word “for.” Notice it in verse 2: Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Or verse 4: Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Verse 3 follows the same pattern but uses the words “as though” and “since:” Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. And again, that pattern can be noted throughout this chapter.
Why then does this first and, I would argue, most fundamental command not follow that pattern? I believe we should see this command as the thesis and archetype for all that follow. Or perhaps we could say that all the other commands in this chapter are particular aspects of this overarching command. Indeed, we find that love for one another must be foundational to Christ’s church. John Owen wonderfully says:
And in vain shall men wrangle and contend about their differences in opinions, faith, and worship, pretending to advance religion by an imposition of their persuasion on others: unless this holy love be again re-introduced among all those who profess the name of Christ, all the concerns of religion will more and more run to ruin. The very continuance of the Church depends secondarily on the continuance of this love. It depends primarily on faith in Christ, whereby we are built on the Rock and hold the Head. But it depends secondarily on this mutual love. Where this faith and love are not, there is no Church. Where they are, there is a Church materially, always capable of evangelical form and order.[1]
Or as our Lord also says in John 13:34-35:
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
This love is not an abstract ideal but a concrete necessity. Indeed, verses 2-3 display the first two tangible examples of such love. First, a Christian’s brotherly love must be hospitable: Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
In the ancient world, hospitality was upheld as a chief virtue. Indeed, three times in the Odyssey, Odysseus inquires whether a country is civilized and godly by how they receive foreigners. Of course, it would be an entirely different question to ask how they lived up to that ideal. Yet if even pagans valued hospitality, how much more ought Christians?
And while we should certainly show hospitality to all men, I believe that the author is speaking particularly about being hospitable to fellow Christians. Remember the context of this letter. As 10:32-34 showed, the original readers had already endured one persecution in which many lost their property, and another persecution was rapidly approaching. Such trials likely left many Christians jobless or homeless and fleeing to other cities.
What better opportunity was there for displaying the love of Christ through their love for one another than by showing hospitality to their afflicted brothers and sisters? About this verse, John Brown writes, “The circumstances of Christians are greatly changed in the course of ages, but the spirit of Christian duty remains unchanged.”[2] While that is certainly still true today, I would also note that with the rise of neopaganism the circumstances of the original audience may not be foreign to us for long. As Christianity continues to lose influence and even provokes outright hostility in our culture, we should make ourselves ready to support those who are strangers for Christ’s sake.
Before moving on to verse 3, we must pause for a moment to consider this explanation: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. I agree with most commentators that Abraham’s lunch with the angels in Genesis 18 is most likely in the author’s mind, and we should take the author as meaning exactly what he says. Since we are not materialists, we should not marvel at the possibility of encountering heavenly beings without realizing it. However, I believe the overall point of mentioning angels here is to set our minds upon the greater spiritual depth that our simple acts of hospitality display. After all, we should remember that Jesus said that the love we show to the least of His brothers is the love that we are showing to Him (Matthew 25:34-40).
Verse 3 is intimately bound to verse 2: Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Here the author summons his readers not to forget those who were imprisoned for Christ’s sake. Ancient prisons were not nearly so humane as today’s prisons. If a person was to survive for any extended period of time, they would only do so through the provision of family. Thus, taking care of those in prison was a perfect way to show a Christian’s brotherly love. Of course, doing so was risky, since the visitor could easily be marked as a fellow Christian. But in answer to this risk, the author says that we should act as though in prison with them. We should count ourselves as already imprisoned whenever one of our brothers or sisters in Christ is imprisoned.
The second half of the verse then expands this loving identification to all those who are mistreated for Christ’s sake. Again, the original audience had already done this once before: “sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated” (10:33). They must do so again, for you also are in the body.
As at many points in this sermon-letter, I think the author uses that phrase in two ways. First, we all belong to the body of Christ; therefore, when one is mistreated, all are mistreated. But I believe he also means that we are still in our earthly bodies and that our race of faith is not yet complete. Therefore, we should show the same kind of love to our persecuted brethren that we would desire to be shown if we found ourselves similarly persecuted.
Read More
Related Posts:

Ultimately, evangelism is our only hope.  A Christian nation must come from the bottom up (the hearts of a converted people), not from the top down (political legislation).  Neither will it come from heavy-weight books.  America must be discipled again with the gospel before we can begin to think about being a Christian nation. Jesus commanded us to disciple the nations (and not just a few elect from among the nations), and that includes America. Here is where we must begin. 

The debate is hot as I predicted (Christian Nationalism – Dump the Term While We Still Can).  Dr. Steven Wolfe has led the way with his book titled The Case for Christian Nationalism.  Most critical reviews of his book have been hard-hitting (The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism by Kevin DeYoung).  I do not think the popularity of the book will survive.  I hope Dr. Wolfe does.
The phrase Christian Nationalism sounds like a political movement.  I suppose this is one reason I do not use the term. I prefer the term Christian Nation which is much more rooted in the Bible. The title “A Case for a Christian Nation” would have been more to my liking.
As I view the landscape of the culture behind the book, and the cultures behind the critical reviews, it appears to me that there are some fundamental issues missing in the whole discussion.  Maybe it is my training in mathematics, but from all that I have read, I do not think those on either side are asking the right questions.
Let us deal with two main issues that are missing in this whole discussion.
The Definition of a Nation
Before the rise of modern America, defining a nation was not a difficult task.  I think we have made things too complex.  Maybe, because we live in America, we have become unable to define a traditional nation. The Bible assumes that we know what a nation is because it commands us to disciple them.  Biblically, a nation was defined by four components – language, borders, religion, and common ancestry.
First, In Acts 2:6, on the day of Pentecost, each nation could be identified by a distinct language.  Secondly, in Acts 17:26, Paul tells those on Mars Hill that God has determined the “times and boundaries” of the nations.
Thirdly, all nations have a god or a religion that determines their civil laws and culture.  As Rushdoony said years ago, the source of law in any nation is the god of that nation.  National customs and traditions are often the application of the religion of a particular nation.  For example, Christmas is still a national holiday in secular America.  In a post-Christian society, I suppose it is a holiday just too good to give up. My wife and I are the only ones on our street that go to church, but nearly everyone has their house decorated for Christmas.
Lastly, the word “nation” is derived from the same word from which we get the word “nativity.”  It is the root word for birth.  Nations or countries in history, before America was born, were formed from people with common ancestors like the nation of Edom, the nation of Ammon, or the nation of Moab; or from a common region of people who shared common traits, like the land of the giants (Anakim).  In the time of Christ, Rome was an empire, but Israel was a nation. The recent world wars were fought by nations mostly defined by these four markers, perhaps except for America.  Sadly, the mere historical recognition of this attribute today harbors the risk being called a racist.
Although originally the United States consisted of white Europeans, we have decided that we can dispense with the ancestor marker and create a land mixed with different ethnicities and nationalities. This is often justified by an appeal to the universality of the gospel.  The universality of the gospel may be ideal for the church community, but in my opinion, the universality of the gospel cannot hold together a multi-ethic nation unless that nation is first a Christian nation.
America is still an experiment in process, and the last chapter of our history has yet to be written.  We are becoming an Empire that holds subservient nations (ethnic groups) together by the force of law.  Today, we define our nation by an idea (democracy will keep us together) rather than by the four attributes previously mentioned.  Whether we can defy these four historical makers, we will see.  Right now, with the rise of CRT, BLM, Wokism, and open borders, our future looks dim.
Was America Ever Christian?
To answer this question, we must go back and define some concepts (my mathematics background again). There are three markers in the United States that could be used to consider whether we were ever a Christian nation.  I call them social, command, and legal.
First, socially America was indeed a Christian nation at her beginnings.  Christian values permeated our people and our institutions. This is generally considered beyond debate.  We do not need a new book pleading for something we want to be (a Christian nation), when we have plenty of history of what we once were (a Christian nation).
I remember not long ago when marriage was only between a man and a woman, abortion was illegal, and locally owned businesses were closed on Sunday and Wednesday evenings (for church prayer meetings).  Church steeples still cover the landscape of our nation.  These were a just a few of the many attributes that made us a Christian nation. Thus, from a social perspective America was originally a Christian nation. With the rise of Neo-Marxism coming out of our universities and the decline of the church, the Christian social fabric of our nation is dying.
Secondly, I use the word command to describe the structure of the American governmental system.  Most state constitutions originally had a religious test in order to hold office which included oaths to the Triune God or to the Bible.  When America was defined as a confederation of states with civil power posited in those states, America was a Christian nation.
The States were the loci of power. The States could command their people in accordance with their own constitutions and Christian principles. It is interesting to note that the State of Tennessee today codifies in its Constitution that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.   However, in essence, this is null and void because state constitutions are basically irrelevant in the present system of civil government where the power of command is now lodged at the federal level.
As a result of the Civil War, the pivot point of the command component shifted from the States to Washington, D.C. With this shift, America ceased to be a Christian Nation.  Thus, if we use the command component as a baseline, and the fact that at one time America consisted of nation-states, we can conclude that America was originally a Christian nation. With this change in the command component, we are no longer a Christian nation.
Thirdly, from a legal perspective, since the loci of command has shifted to the federal government, the United States Constitution is now the dominant legal document.  It is the final reference point for all legal matters, as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court. Originally, from a legal perspective, America as a confederation of states was a Christian nation.  Not so now.
It is my view that the United States Constitution was never a Christian document.  We must realize that our founding forefathers had clay feet just like us.  I believe George Washington (who presided over the Constitutional Convention) was a Christian man, but I think his commitment to the Masonic Lodge (with its unitarian god) was greater than his commitment to the Church.  Ben Franklin, a prominent presence at the Convention, was a deist in addition to being a Mason.
James Madison (not a Mason) studied under Rev. John Witherspoon at what is now Princeton University, but he graduated with a commitment to the perspective of Scottish Realism and Natural Law (learned from Witherspoon).  Religion was good for civil order, but Christian denominations served America best by fighting with each other.  In his mind, this would keep them from establishing a national church.
Christianity so permeated society in early America that our founders could not foresee what would be happening in a little over 200 years.  In predicting the long-term consequences of present actions, we all have our blind spots.
I believe this decision to become legally a secular nation on the federal level during the Constitution Convention was deliberate. There was a real disconnect between the lawyers at the Convention and the clergy in their pulpits.  There was no reference to the Triune God of the Bible or his law in the Constitution.  No religious test was allowed on the national level as it was required on the state level in most states.
Luther Martin, a delegate to the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention from the State of Maryland, said of the debate on this issue:
“The part of the system, which provides that no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, was adopted by a great majority of the Convention, and without much debate.  However, there were some members so unfashionable (like Mr. Martin) as to think that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments, would be welcome security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.” 
Some argue that a religious test was not needed because the Constitution was intended as a procedural manual only (Rushdoony).  Others argue that since the states had religious tests then none was needed in the U. S. Constitution (DeMar).  Some, like myself, reject both these arguments.  I think those who authored the Constitution knew exactly what they were doing.  They were creating a secular national government based on what they conceived as Natural Law.  Thus, welcome to modern America, the product of a secular United States Constitution.
A religious test in the United States Constitution would have made America legally a Christian nation on a national level, but our forefathers chose a different structure.  With the rise of power in the hands of the federal government supplanting the state governments, America legally forfeited its status as a Christian nation.  Legally, the God of the Bible no longer exists, and if he does exist, he is no longer relevant.
One Christian clergyman saw it all very clearly in his own day. In 1788 the Rev. Henry Abbot was a member of the North Carolina State Convention which was called to ratify the proposed United States Constitution.  Representing his constituents, he spoke to the body of delegates and prophetically said:
“The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there is no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.”
His constituents saw the issues very clearly. Prophets indeed! The United States Congress in our own time has members who are homosexuals, transgenders, and Muslims.  They are voting on laws to regulate Christian thought and action. Since there is no religious test, the concept of positive law (the law is what I say it is) has replaced biblical law in both judicial and legislative processes.  This does not bode well for our nation.
Conclusion
Foundational definitions matter.  This is what is missing in the current discussion on topics like Christian Nationalism.  One thing is for certain, from what I call the social, command, and legal perspectives, America is no longer a Christian nation. The alarm is now being heard very clearly. Christians are dealing with grief, and are scrambling to do something about it.  Some like Dr. Wolfe are writing books. Some, reluctantly, are adopting his terms.  Others are attacking the writers of such books without offering foundational definitions.  
Yes, ultimately, evangelism is our only hope.  A Christian nation must come from the bottom up (the hearts of a converted people), not from the top down (political legislation).  Neither will it come from heavy-weight books.  America must be discipled again with the gospel before we can begin to think about being a Christian nation. Jesus commanded us to disciple the nations (and not just a few elect from among the nations), and that includes America. Here is where we must begin.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.

Related Posts:

Like the term “sexual orientation,” the word “cisgender” is freighted with false ideas about sex and human nature. Christians should use the term only for very limited purpose, such as in quotations, lest we are subtly conformed to worldly thought.

This term is used to describe people whose biology and gender identity match, according to ordinary social expectations. Biological males who present as men are “cisgender,” as are biological females who present as women.
This term is inextricable from two larger overall projects of the sexual revolution. First, this term is bound up with the claim that biological sex does not determine anything about “gender”—that is, the social role and expectations that people adopt according to their sex. Second, this term helps to classify people according to their level of privilege in society. It is often said that cisgendered, straight, white, males are privileged and powerful, while gender-queer people are marginalized and low-status.
Both of these underlying ideas are false. The link between biology and social role is far too universal to come from a mere social convention or construct. No matter how many people insist that men and women can both be “birthing persons,” it is no accident that women generally have a more domestic role in society, and men a more outwardly-focused role. Biology and social role are deeply connected. They are both parts of human nature.
Read More